First Documented UFO Debunked

That documentary is quite big on assertions and less so on referencing them. Happens to be a theory I sympathise with, in part, but I don't think
that's a good documentary. It's like a Wikipedia page with all of the references removed.

Only the guy, Radu, was working for the Russkis not the Americans and they didn't actually manage to get them to work that well did they?

So let me get this right. The Russkis could have simply blasted the entire USA's air force out of the skies but didn't. There were no nuclear
ballistic missiles but they could have just swanned in and taken out the whole of the 509th, on the ground, but didn't > Why?

See the basic laws of war are simple. If you have an overwhelming technological advantage, you use it or lose it. You either use its' existence to
make demands round the negotiating table, ala the USA bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or you launch a preemptive strike and then force
negotiations.

You don't fly them round your opponents skies and pretend they are aliens.
See, the Skoda works, which if you do your homework you will find Skoda were, probably the most advanced military engineering firm in the world, from
the early 1900 till the end of WW2, fell into Russki hands

Then of course there is another huge problem. The Nazi's filmed people being gassed, being tortured during medical experiments, but they somehow
forgot to film their flying saucers. Yeah right, see dictatorships are based on records. Records of everything in duplicate so they can pry into every
last aspect of people's lives. They file everything in triplicate., they also film everything possible. But hey, let's all believe, they just so
happened to forget to film the most important technological break through, in flight, ever..

In other words, it's a great story, but story is all that it is. They didn't build bases on the moon, as many have claimed, Then, there is problem
that, not one single member of the Luftwaffe, or the SS has ever come forward to say. Oh yes i was on those details i saw abcxyz.

There is some evidence to suggest the Nazis were working on electromagnetic propulsion units. Only problem is, that evidence also suggests that the
following was just a bit of a problem. The technicians and staff started dying of aneurysm, were prone to horrendous migraines and bouts of
spontaneous nosebleeds etc etc.

Even the Nazis tended to shy away from technology that, killed their own pilots and brightest scientists, especially, the paid up members of the
party.

What you are actually asking people to believe is this.

The Americans and Russians had this amazing technology but decide to build the likes of the A10 and keep that expensive antiquated technology in the
field for 30-40 years, when they could have been zipping around at Mach 7.

I'd respectfully suggest, that, is an even more *out there* conspiracy theiry, than those craft being chuffin aliens.

That documentary is quite big on assertions and less so on referencing them. Happens to be a theory I sympathise with, in part, but I don't think
that's a good documentary. It's like a Wikipedia page with all of the references removed.

I had absolutely no idea that someone had already connected the dots. If I was able to make the connections before seeing that documentary, I am way
closer to the truth than any believer. Everyone in that documentary was close or apart of what was going on behind closed doors. Actual men involved
with Lockheed, Northrop, and the US military gave their first hand experiences in that documentary. There were no assertions in that documentary.

If anyone says that documentary is full of shnite, you need your heads examined for insanity. I was able to connect the dots way before I found that
video. UFOs were the result of allied forces tinking and evolving German designs of flying saucers. It was the push for stealth technology, which
started back in the 1930s. It is as realistic of a story you can get, and it keeps everything firmly planted within the realm of rationality.

Its an awesome human story about man's ability to reach for something bigger, and their relentless fight for air superiority.

The image found on the link under your first paragraph is not a sketch, it is Arnold holding a photo of an idealized object which doesn't resemble
one whit what he claims he saw. If you want to see Arnold's original sketch go to: www.dailykos.com...:-Anatomy-of-an-Explanation,-Rockets-and-Flares

There's also something wrong with Arnold's description of the objects' movements. I never heard anyone say "resembling a saucer skipped across
water." He may have said it that way but the normal phrase is "a stone skipped on the water" or "across the water". A stone, never a saucer.
When was the last time you saw someone skipping saucers across a body of water? If anything, you saw or participated in throwing stones so that they
skipped on the surface.

So the Horten theory did not originate with his sketch, which doesn't look anything like the Horten design, it was based on images as seen in the
photo as provided by the OP.

You can connect the dots all you like, but it won;t give you what you think you have. You just haven't thought it through at all. Just imagine the
ramifications for technology if they did have these craft? Why do we still build trucks when we could just drop cargoes in on top of the requisite
building?

See your solution just doesn't add up, unless we admit, there is such a huge conspiracy of silence involving, literally 1000s of people over 3
generations now.

You do realise that, the logical conclusion of your theory means that. Vehicles , such as fork lift trucks, wouldn't be needed as we could just shift
things round on levitating palettes?

The distance that Ken estimated the objects were from his position is far enough away that the details he sketched can't be near accurate, as he
wasn't close enough to pick out that much. Unless his distance was pretty far off, then of course his speed estimation would be off too.

I don't know what the guy saw for sure, but I still think the least probable conclusion would be alien or reverse engineered craft. Perhaps he saw a
combination of prototype craft combined with just the right angle of sun through his cockpit mixed with a little turbulence to screw up any hope of
smooth viewing.

And no, before you ask, I don't automatically assign Kenneth Arnold superhuman observational powers just because he is a pilot. He is a human first,
pilot second. I know many pilots and several astronauts, and among them are some pretty incompetent folks, same as any line of work.

Flying wings are unstable.
That is why they used anti gravity.
See the Hudson Valley video I recommended.
A very giant flying wing, in detail, lots of witnesses.
An experimental craft perhaps.
And if the Foo in Germany used anti gravity all they had to do
when they hit America was put the Foo anti gravity in the wing.
The Foo or just light balls are sill being seen and were filmed
over Long Island in a UFO Hunter episode.

Don't ask me where the saucer shape came from.
Bill Lyne saw wok shaped as stated in a UFO Hunters episode.
Walton saw round, oval and flat shaped craft at the base he was
at when he recovered from the knock out drugs.
When the base crew saw him they put him under right away.
Those shapes are the only detail the FBI let him hold on to
after their briefing and any book allowance.

So based on Walton and other cases, Arnold may have changed
his mind when confronted by the FBI. So saucer shape may have
been what Arnold saw in the first place.

One case for the modification is the cockpit on the wing looks
circular like the large circle of light on the Hudson Valley wing.
I'd say the Hudson Valley wing had anti gravity and so did the
Arnold wing. Arnold would know what a cockpit looks like even
though never seeing the Horton wing cockpits.

The only other idea is Arnold agreed to show that wing drawing
and someone in the know made it exactly how the anti gravity
wing looked like.

ED:
The flying wing's "wobbly" flight characteristic.
Bill Lyne saw the wobble in his anti gravity wok sighting.
The on board turbine rotation caused the wobble when in hover.
Tesla had dual rotation turbines in his VTOL patent so that
similar to the first helicopter ever by Germany had two rotor
blades for stability. Bill saw such an early saucer the engineers
did not have the dual turbines in yet but the wobble diminished
with speed.

lets first clarify that Arnold said he saw somethign that looked LIKE SAUCERS SKIPPING ON WATER.not flying saucers

secondly i dare say that its hard to believe the lengths us goverment goes to discredit people.was Arnold an idiot??if he was then his trainers should
check with doctors.never seen idiots train people in the army.

If Arnold said he saw somethign then he did see it.he was an aviator so he knew he was seeing something out of this world.

now if you are telling this wasnt a UFO then ok by me.it could have been anything.but as things are now i take Arnolds account.he saw something
weird.and in my mind prolly a UFO

Well, after reading the thread, I think that is important to put up some details about this that people are missing.

First of all, the Horten Ho 229.

Efficieny

The aircraft was just amazing. But not for the reasons many people in here consider.

It was amazing because they could get something like this up in the air without crashing, although, they DID crash a lot of them. I'm writting this
using my memory about the subject, but I think I recall correctly that the Horten Ho 229 was one of the most deadly aircraft that Nazis had. The death
rate of this plane was higher in takeoffs and landings that the one in combat.

Why?

Well, first of all, jet technology wasn't all that great in that time. Assuming jets at that time worked as fine as ours today, is like saying that a
Ford T is as fast as a Ford Mustang.

It's silly.

Those engines had HUGE problems, that only after the 50's were solved by USA/British engineers.

The fuel management was so dangerous, that after igniting the engine, if you throttled up a little, just one second too soon or a second too late, the
engine would get on fire, and you can guess what would happen after in a aircraft that was made to be light and had no armor.

Jet engines today, are ignited and the software manages the amount of fuel needed to start the burning and propulsion systems. It even gets harder
with engines that have afterburner technology.

But, that is today. If you read closely, I said "the software manages (...)".

With Horten Ho 229 that didn't happen. You had to manage YOURSELF the fuel that got into the engines with the throttle, which, believe me, is pretty
hard just in theory, let alone in practice.

Imagine that you get in your car. You start your engine, shift gears and all that, and use the gas pedal to accelarate and reduce engine power.
That's is the same that happens in today jet engines.

What happened in those days, is that before you started the engine, you had to "moist" the engines with fuel. A little too much = boom/fire, a
little too less = drawning of the engine.

If you did manage to start the engine, you had to control very gently the throttle so you don't flood the engine (= boom/fire) nor let it stall and
shut down (meaning hours of waiting for the engine to cool down). And this is BEFORE you even started rolling into the runway.

After the rpm's are stable, and the burning is good, you have to gently throttle the power so you can beat inertia and start moving.

In flight, you have to think 100 times before making a maneuver, because lack of air means the engines will explode, and too much of it means that
it'll explode. A sharp turn will change your air flow... Altitude will change your air flow... Nevermind that flying today is "hard". That plane
was a nightmare to fly.

Maneuvers

Anyone who thinks this aircraft is a normal aircraft doesn't know anything about aviation or is living in a aviation dream.

Just taking off was insane. The aircraft had the nose pointing up, and after you have enough speed to gain lift, the rear just jumped in the air, and
you had this huge wheel in the front still touching the ground, and with a little wind, it would dance everywhere.

Aircraft have wings (horizontal and vertical) so you can control the aircraft in all directions, going forward. Meaning, you need to have wings that
"say" to the plane "go this way at this level".

Imagine what is taking the vertical wings of your plane. Now you have a plane that only says "fly at this level". There is nothing there that is
telling your plane to keep heading forward without loosing stability. Nevermind turning........

Nazis had a smart way of getting around this, using drag. Air drag was making the support that vertical wings were making if they were there.

But still, it was VERY, really VERY HARD to fly and keep steady.

Travell through time, and you'll see the B-2. This "delta wing" aircraft type is so hard to fly and keep in the air TODAY, that the USAF keeps
classified the technology behind the computers that aid the pilots flying this things.

You need to have millions of calculations per second, just to keep the aircraft in the air. Imagine how it was like flying that thing in the 40's.

The first YB prototypes didn't use jet engines, for the exact reasons stated above.

When they started to use jet engines, it was a huge failure.

Detal Wing aircrafts are good, in theory, or in modern days like the B-2.

Conclusion:

By the reports of the witness, it couldn't be any known prototype or nazi aircraft. The maneuvers and speed don't match the effiency of those
planes.

They can't make hard turns, they can't do huge speeds, they weren't safe.

Usually, the flights of these things was just getting them up in the air, make a straight path, and very slowly (and with a wide angle) make a turn to
head back.

Here is one major problem with his story. How do you clearly see the shape of objects 20-25 miles away, unless they are HUGE!!!! OK maybe they
were huge, let's continue..

Well, you can't see the cockpit, nor the perfect shape. But in that distance, you can see part of the shape. For example, imagine that by his
drawing, the UFO has a very sharp shape, instead of that round one. You can't see a object clearly, but if the angle helps, you can see the
"silhouette".

A bright flash, on his airplane, from objects 25 miles away? Surely anyone familiar with the inverse square law of light intensity would
suspect a problem with an explanation that a reflection from an object 25 miles away would couse a bright flash reflected on his airplane. Remember,
he wasn't looking at the objects at this time, he hadn't spotted them yet. He just noticed the bight flash.

I think you got this wrong, my friend.

It wasn't a huge flash, to my understanding.

I think he is saying that he saw a bright flashing, and that can be seen even further than 25 miles away.

Pilots sighted incoming enemies by watching them glow at a distance.

Military use mirrors on the ground to give signals to high altitude aircrafts.

If Germany did make such craft that were silent and quite fast, why did they not deploy it to the fronts they were fighting?

They did. That's one of the most stupid secrets in history. There was a battle, already inside Germany, where prototypes were used. They were used,
and for that matter, according to their effiency (since most of them has jet engines), if they had used them early in the war, they could have won
it.

There are many areas (including Alaska) where they could fly such aircraft without people seeing it.

Like stated before, these wing-type aircraft are very unstable.

It isn't hard to assume that they could get in "trouble" and have to go even further from their designated area of test-flight. If they were
unable to make a hard turn, it would take them miles and miles of territory to make a turn without crashing.

One of the most profound failures in ufology is the uninformed witness excuse. Sure, you can get the testimony from an air-force this or that;
however, the right hand doesn't always know what the left is doing. If anyone goes on record saying, "I'm in a position where I would know
everything...", then they are straight out lying. When it comes to black-operations, the only people who do know all the details would never-ever
come forward. It would be a breach of national security. Unless the government is going to declassify every case, knowing which UFO belongs to which
allies will be impossible. Thus, we will never-ever get disclosure.

"But, what about all the evidence..."
Every piece of evidence a witness has provided is based upon subjective interpretation; thus, all the information that currently supports the theory
of alien made UFOs is bogus.

Again. If I am able to make the connections between UFOs and man made aircraft, before watching any video that spelled it out, I can assure you that I
am (and others like me) are on the right track. Sure, the videos I provided didn't flesh out every single event; however, it did explain the
phenomenon within a historical context. It echoed the direction that I was trying to explain to everyone in post one.

Its not my fault that the actual players behind the scenes came forward. Especially those who were designing the UFOs in the first place.

If anyone goes on record saying, "I'm in a position where I would know everything...", then they are straight out lying.

And then, you say this:

If I am able to make the connections between UFOs and man made aircraft, before watching any video that spelled it out, I can assure you that
I am are on the right track.

You don't know anything that anyone on this forum can also know. Furthermore, there are people in here who know a lot more than you.

I'm a pilot, I know a lot about aviation, but I'm no expert in other subjects. But there are people in here who know a lot in those subjects I'm no
expert, and the same goes around.

You are not an exception. You have a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. More, you also have an opinion, which is exactly that
and has the same weight.

You can't claim to have found the truth when researchers with thousand of dollars at their disposal, and all the other institutions, have done
research around those subjects, and just because you thought about something, and "connected the dots" you just figured it out. It's arrogant and
unrealistic.

There are people who do this for a living, and morality debates aside, they even make money with this.

Just because you spent some time researching, doesn't mean that your theory is stronger (or weaker, for that matter) than any other around here.

it did explain the phenomenon within a historical context. It echoed the direction that I was trying to explain to everyone in post one.

Again, you gave a theory.

It has strong points, and it has weak points (many of them, which you didn't mention, btw). Same as any other. You don't hold any more truth than
any other person/theory, and claiming to the contrary, doesn't get you anywhere..

Furthermore, your theory basis itself on some aspects that you(and all of us) KNOW for a fact. But you don't have all the data.

Untill you get all that data from secret projects, you can't claim to own the truth, because that works for both ways. If it is ridiculous to hear
claims that there are aliens in here, because there are secret projects with "fishy" contents, then it is also ridiculous to claim to hold the truth
or "the right path" just because you have a more mundane theory.

Yes, there are weird and amazing aircrafts around the world, at ANY given time or place. Yes, some of them are called "UFO's", like the F-117, B-2
or the RS-71.

But that doesn't prove anything.

Theory...Theory...Theory...

You have a theory, that btw, has been around for years. It is one side of the debate, not the truth.

You say "oh, here it is... These planes match the description"... But you failed to mention that the witness reports don't add up according to the
facts around those planes.

And please, don't be arrogant to the point of shaving off credibility of witnesses just because you want to, or it conviniant to your theory. That is
just arrogante, my friend.

If anyone goes on record saying, "I'm in a position where I would know everything...", then they are straight out lying.

And then, you say this:

If I am able to make the connections between UFOs and man made aircraft, before watching any video that spelled it out, I can assure you that
I am are on the right track.

You don't know anything that anyone on this forum can also know. Furthermore, there are people in here who know a lot more than
you.

Wow. You are really reaching to discredit me. Good for you. Since both comments are no where related in context, you don't have a case for your
argument.

What you did was attack me personally. Since you couldn't fight against the argument, you had to attack the messenger. Kudos to you.

I smell desperation behind your intent.

I'm a pilot, I know a lot about aviation, but I'm no expert in other subjects. But there are people in here who know a lot in those subjects
I'm no expert, and the same goes around.

Please. Don't waste my time. Even if you are a pilot who knows 'something' about aviation, that doesn't mean you know 'everything' about
aviation. I may be an expert in psychology, but I still have many things to learn.

Since you couldn't fight against the argument, you had to attack the messenger.

Now explain this:

Originally posted by Pathos
One of the most profound failures in ufology is the uninformed witness excuse. Sure, you can get the testimony from an air-force this or that;
however, the right hand doesn't always know what the left is doing. If anyone goes on record saying, "I'm in a position where I would know
everything...", then they are straight out lying. When it comes to black-operations, the only people who do know all the details would never-ever
come forward. It would be a breach of national security. Unless the government is going to declassify every case, knowing which UFO belongs to which
allies will be impossible. Thus, we will never-ever get disclosure.

"But, what about all the evidence..."
Every piece of evidence a witness has provided is based upon subjective interpretation; thus, all the information that currently supports the theory
of alien made UFOs is bogus.

Again. If I am able to make the connections between UFOs and man made aircraft, before watching any video that spelled it out, I can assure you that I
am (and others like me) are on the right track. Sure, the videos I provided didn't flesh out every single event; however, it did explain the
phenomenon within a historical context. It echoed the direction that I was trying to explain to everyone in post one.

Its not my fault that the actual players behind the scenes came forward. Especially those who were designing the UFOs in the first place.

Where, in here, have you refuted ANY of my previous arguments? You just picked one little, tiny detail and started spiting on witnesses,
whoever they are.

You are really reaching to discredit me. Good for you. Since both comments are no where related in context, you don't have a case for your
argument.

I smell desperation behind your intent.

You're the one who doesn't even know how the aircraft's you posted work, and don't even try to refute any of the data given above. I'm in no
desperation, at all.

Don't waste my time. Even if you are a pilot who knows 'something' about aviation, that doesn't mean you know 'everything' about
aviation.

Don't waste your time? Why the hell did you made a thread if you don't want people to debate your ideias?

Oh, I know why... Because you think you hold the truth, so anyone who refutes your theory and actually shows up concrete data, and not just "dot's
connected", is wasting your time.

Desperation? Me? Doesn't look like that...

And I don't know everything about aviation. It would be a lie if I stated so. But "expert" doesn't mean you know everything. Means you know a lot,
more than average, that you have a deep knowledge about. And in that area, I MUST have more than you, because it's my job.

BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. You're the one viewing it as a personal attack, and you're the one avoiding the subject. You completly
ignored my post where I refute that the Horten 229 was the UFO viewed by Arnold.

Checking that series out now.
Thanks.
There is a web page on '46 Nazi aircraft and Japan as well with
similar designs.

A B-17 raid was filmed by gunners as Feu or Foo planes went
by or circled the bombers and shown to Bill Lyne in an Air Force
Intel group as the officer said they were alien craft. Bill waited
to talk to the officer about believing in aliens and perhaps he
was just following orders cause he didn't like questioning according
to what I recall of the story.

ED:Note the denial of sub launch missiles in the last paragraph of
the info :

Also proposed was an attack on America using a V2 launched from a U-boat, but as this film shows, the very difficult launch procedure would have been
impossible from a U-boat at that time during the war. Years later, this idea would become a reality with the advent of the nuclear submarine.

We must be told at every opportunity.
That is because there was a statement some where that Hitler was
getting soft and did not want to launch a final attach in desperation.
Small subs with missile silos, compressed air launch just as we have
now are still on the web at one time and never seen is the towed
canister launcher. Well the attack never happened but subs were told
to be scuttled with the crew aboard. Years latter we went looking
for these subs with the Glowmar Challenger built by Howard Hughes.

ED+: Of course the V2 would not do on a sub, it required a trained
mobile crew to launch from the Hague. Other missiles would be used.
The ones lost in scuttled subs.
ED++: So New York was safe. So New York was safe. So New York was
safe. How many times. Mind control made easy. Does that make sure
some subs were off the coast with more than radios.
Liquid air easily made dripping from those frozen pipes.
And ends up with Hitler had no bomb, clean or dirty or something else.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.